content-based language instruction - investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Content-Based Language Instruction: Investigating the Effectiveness of the Adjunct ModelAuthor(s): Marguerite Ann Snow and Donna M. BrintonSource: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 553-574Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587256 .Accessed: 12/03/2014 06:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 161.139.102.6 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:47:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 1988

Content-Based Language Instruction: Investigating the Effectiveness of the Adjunct Model MARGUERITE ANN SNOW California State University, Los Angeles DONNA M. BRINTON University of California, Los Angeles

This article describes the adjunct model of language instruction, in which English/ESL courses are linked with content courses to integrate better the reading, writing, and study skills required for academic success in the university setting. Following a rationale for the adjunct model and a description of its key features as employed in the Freshman Summer Program (FSP) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the findings of two studies carried out at UCLA are presented: (a) former students' evaluation of the program and (b) follow-up interviews with selected ESL students and results of a simulated examination comparing the FSP follow-up students and non-FSP ESL students.

The nation's colleges and universities are faced with the mounting challenge of educating a steady stream of underprepared students entering higher education. These incoming students, both from language majority and language minority backgrounds, enter the university lacking the essential skills required to succeed academically, such as the ability to synthesize lecture and text material and to express this information clearly in written assignments and on examinations. Language minority students, in addition to being deficient in academic skills, also may be less proficient in English, thus further limiting their potential for university success.

In terms of university admissions, language minority students comprise an ever-increasing segment of the undergraduate population. In the state of California, for example, the number of Hispanic high-school graduates grew from 22,000 in the mid-1960s to 52,000 in the mid-1980s, and the number of Asian high-school

553


graduates grew from 6,000 to 20,000 in the same period (Kissler, 1983). And although not all of these graduates enter the university, the impact of changing demographics on university admissions is undeniable.

This shift in population demographics alone would be no cause for concern. However, coupled with the educational "gap" that exists between the high school and the university and the growing percentage of language minority students enrolling at the university, we cannot overlook its impact on higher education. First, although no clear correlation has been established between language proficiency and academic success (Graham, 1987), it makes intuitive sense that there exists a threshold level of proficiency without which these students will not succeed at university studies. Second, given the low retention rates of certain groups of language minority students at the university, there is clear cause for concern. In essence, what is occurring is that the university system is generally unprepared to assist these students in attaining academic success by providing the necessary support system.

What options exist at the university to better prepare students to cope with the academic demands? The answer lies, at least to some degree, in recognizing what it is that students need to be able to do at the university, particularly in terms of writing skills. Partial insight into this issue can be gleaned from a number of academic skills surveys that have examined the issue of what students are required to do at the university.

The earliest of these studies, both at the University of Southern California (Kroll, 1979; Ostler, 1980), surveyed the native-speaking and nonnative-speaking populations of this institution, asking students to self-assess the types of writing assignments they encountered in their various disciplines. Differences between disciplines and status (graduate versus undergraduate) notwith- standing, the studies suggested that the personal essay has little place in an English-for-academic-purposes (EAP) writing curriculum. Furthermore, although lending credence to the place of the research paper in the curriculum, they also provided support for an increased focus on essay-exam writing, critique writing, and summary writing.

In follow-up studies, Johns (1981) and Bridgeman and Carlson (1984) surveyed faculty members across disciplines to determine further the types of academic tasks actually engaged in at the university. Johns concluded in her survey of 140 faculty members at San Diego State University that writing assignments at the university invariably involve listening and reading, and she suggested that the writing curriculum mirror this integration by

554 TESOL QUARTERLY


asking students to paraphrase or summarize reading materials or to reorganize and rewrite lecture notes.

Similarly, Bridgeman and Carlson (1984), in their comprehensive survey of 190 academic departments at 34 East Coast universities, examined the frequency of topic types (ranging from the personal essay to the assessment of a point of view in a passage) in the seven university disciplines in which nonnative-speaking students most commonly major. Although no one topic type emerged as most common across disciplines, creative or personal writing appeared to be just as rare at the university level as expository or critical writing assignments were frequent. The three most popular topic types noted were the description and interpretation of charts and graphs, the argumentation of a topic with the audience designated, and the comparison and contrast of two items in which the writer concludes by taking a position. In keeping with Johns's (1981) conclusions, Bridgeman and Carlson concluded that in the writing curriculum, students would best be prepared for cross-disciplinary academic writing by tasks that require them to organize arguments from several sources and by assignments that require them to analyze and critique ideas, excerpts, and passages.

In a similarly focused study into the genre, range, and nature of writing tasks assigned by university professors, Horowitz (1986) collected 54 writing tasks assigned by 38 faculty members at Western Illinois University and classified them into seven categories, two of which were not included in the classifications of the previous studies. Horowitz concluded that the most common writing tasks across the curriculum were the synthesis of multiple sources, the connection of theory and data, the summary/reaction to a reading, and the report on participatory experience. Echoing John's (1981) finding that undergraduate students typically lack the ability to recognize relevant data, Horowitz suggested that the writing curriculum stress the recognition and reorganization of data by creating assignments that get students to practice "academic information processing."

Given the above research findings, what should the priorities be for helping students to attain advanced literacy skills? Clearly, a focus on critical writing and thinking skills appears to be a top (if not the top) priority in the university language curriculum. This article describes one approach to providing language students with the academic skills cited in the various surveys as requisite for success at the university. The major premise here is that in order to meet this challenge, we need a broader perspective, namely, that language and content instruction must be integrated.

THE ADJUNCT MODEL 555


In the past few years, there has been growing interest in content- based approaches to language teaching (see Mohan, 1979, 1986; Willetts, 1986), the roots of which can be traced to a variety of sources. The Language Across the Curriculum movement, begun as an approach for teaching native English speakers, claims that effective language teaching should cross over all subject-matter domains. Furthermore, in the area of English for specific purposes, advocates such as Widdowson (1978) recommend integrating language teaching in the schools with other subjects "as this not only helps ensure the link with reality and pupils' own experience, but also provides us with the certain means of teaching language as communication, as use rather than simply as usage" (p. 16). In the foreign language context, monolingual English-speaking children in immersion programs receive the majority of their elementary education through the medium of content presented in the foreign language. Finally, in a comprehensive review, Shih (1986) describes five content-based approaches to writing instruction in the university context for both native and nonnative speakers.

This article examines one such approach-the Freshman Summer Program (FSP) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). First, the adjunct model employed in the FSP since 1977 is described, as well as key features of the program. The results of two studies that were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of the model are then presented. The final section of the article provides a critique of the adjunct model. The applicability of this model to other instructional settings is also discussed.

THE FSP INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL The FSP is a content-based instructional program designed to

meet the linguistic and academic needs of students who lack exposure to the types of tasks required for success at the university. This 7-week, cross-curricular program is based on the adjunct model, in which students are enrolled concurrently in two linked courses-a language course (e.g., Intermediate ESL) and a content course (e.g., Introductory Psychology)- that share the content base and complement each other in terms of mutually coordinated assignments.

Key features of the adjunct model's academic component are the integration of native and nonnative speakers in the content course and the sheltering of ESL students in the ESL language component. In this way, the language needs of the ESL students can be attended to while at the same time the authenticity of the academic demands placed on the students in the content course is ensured.

556 TESOL QUARTERLY


The focus in the ESL class is on essential modes of academic writing, academic reading, study skills development, and the treatment of persistent structural errors. The activities of the content-based language course are geared to stimulate students to think and learn in the target language by requiring them to synthesize information from the content-area lectures and readings. Since these materials provide authentic content for students to discuss and write about, the adjunct model provides a context for integrating the four traditional language skills. (For a comprehensive discussion of the theoretical rationale and practical considera- tions in implementing content-based language programs, including adjunct courses, see Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, in press.)

In addition to the academic component, the FSP at UCLA also includes a strong network of tutorial and counseling services, as well as an on-campus residential program and an organized recreational and social program. These components provide the students with additional benefits crucial to incoming students who are adjusting to many aspects of their new environment.

Every summer, incoming freshman students at UCLA are invited to attend the FSP, which attracts approximately 600 to 700 students each year. The participants primarily consist of low-income, ethnic minority, or linguistic minority students, with nonnative speakers of English comprising 10% to 20% of the student population. The bulk of the ESL students, who are the focus of this article, are Asian immigrants who have completed their secondary education in the United States.

Based on their freshman English placement scores on the system- wide University of California Subject A Examination and/or the UCLA English as a Second Language Placement Exam (ESLPE), students are tracked into the parallel sequences of native-speaker or ESL courses. Thus, lower proficiency students are placed into English A/ESL 33B, whereas intermediate-level students are placed into English B/ESL 33C.

The introductory-level content courses offered vary each year but are always typical of those that undergraduates take to fulfill their general education requirements. Typically, 6 to 10 linked content/language courses are offered, and students are allowed to express a preference for a certain content course. Where possible, this preference is taken into consideration in enrolling students in the linked courses. However, in the case of ESL students, their level of English language proficiency generally dictates the content course to which they are assigned; in any given summer, only 1 to 4 content courses will have an ESL section attached to them. A typical summer's adjunct design is displayed in Figure 1.



FIGURE 1 The Academic Component of the UCLA Freshman Summer Program

ENG?. A ESL

ENG. B PSYCH ENG. B POLI SOCIAL SCI SCIENCE

FSP ADMINISTRATION

COMP BHISTORY

SCI

ENG. B GEOG ENG. B

ENG. A ESL

Students in the FSP attend 12 to 14 hours of language classes weekly and have 8 contact hours per week of lectures/discussion sections in the content courses. They receive regular university credit for both courses that they take during the program.

In order to realize the goal of linking the language and content courses, extensive planning takes place prior to the summer term. During the FSP curriculum development process, a needs assessment of the required skills of the content discipline is conducted to determine the instructional priorities of the language

558 TESOL QUARTERLY


class. This assessment includes feedback from the instructors of the content and language courses; analyses of the language and content materials (e.g., syllabuses, textbooks, and supplementary readings); review of the previous years' curricula and assignments; and additional input from the administrative staff and other specialists called in to help plan the summer's curriculum. The resulting curriculum plan is a synthesis of the factors identified in this assessment process.

The language curriculum is determined by taking into consideration two factors: the standard UCLA curricular objectives for the particular level of ESL proficiency and the feasibility of integrating the language and content objectives of the two courses. Language instructors in an adjunct course therefore have to juggle the demands of their language syllabus with the constraints and added dimensions placed on it by the demands of the content course and attempt to resolve possible disparities between these to the best of their abilities.

During the curriculum-planning stage, then, the language instructors determine the optimal sequence of topics and skills so that the objectives of the two linked courses can map onto each other most effectively. For example, during the first 2 weeks, in which the content professor typically presents an overview of the field and its various branches and introduces basic discipline- specific terminology, the language course reflects this emphasis by covering the definition and classification modes and focusing on the study skills most needed at this critical first stage of university study-that is, time management and academic reading and note- taking strategies.

Assignments in the ESL component of the adjunct program are based almost entirely on material from the content course. A typical first reading activity, for example, is a survey of the content course textbook, with students being required to answer a series of questions that familiarize them with their textbook-that is, how to use the table of contents, index, references, glossary, and so on. Similarly, a typical writing lesson might require students to use their content course lecture notes to write sentence-level definitions and then build from the sentence level to write a paragraph of definition or a more extended definition paper. In all such assignments, emphasis is placed on both the accuracy of content and on the accuracy and sophistication of the language used to communicate this content.

Throughout the instructional period, weekly meetings are scheduled to ensure continued cooperation between the two teams of instructors. These meetings provide a forum for discussing the



week's evaluation activity (examination or paper assignment) in the content course as well as individual student progress and/or problems. When necessary, decisions are made to refer students to tutorial and counseling services. (For a more detailed description of the curriculum, methodology, and materials used in the FSP, see Snow & Brinton, 1984, in press.)

Although there has been extensive work in the design and implementation of the adjunct model at UCLA, little formal research had been conducted to document the effectiveness of the model. The previously collected data consisted mainly of some student background information, student program evaluations, and individual course/teacher evaluations. The purpose of the two studies reported in this article, therefore, was to build on the existing data base and to attempt a more comprehensive examination of the ESL component of the FSP. (For a more detailed discussion of the research project, see Snow & Brinton, 1988.)

STUDY 1: STUDENT PROFILE AND RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE FSP

Since little follow-up had been conducted on the former ESL students who had participated in the FSP, the first study sought to locate former participants and to collect data on their academic performance at UCLA. Furthermore, this study included a retrospective evaluation of the FSP. The research questions were as follows: 1. What was the profile of former ESL students who had

participated in the FSP from 1981-1985 (e.g., major, grade point average [GPA], persistence at the university)?

2. What was the former ESL students' retrospective evaluation of the FSP after they had taken regular courses during other school years?

Methodology Subjects. Subjects for the profile component of Study 1 were the 224 students who were enrolled in the ESL track of the FSP during the summers of 1981-1985 and for whom addresses were available. These students had been enrolled in the two levels of ESL courses, ESL 33B or ESL 33C. As noted earlier, the majority of these students were Asian immigrants and were incoming freshmen at the

560 TESOL QUARTERLY


time they attended the FSP. Seventy-nine of the former FSP students completed the retrospective evaluation. Instrument. A questionnaire consisting of four sections was designed by the researchers to collect information from these former students. The first section asked the students to supply current demographic information such as year of FSP participation, adjunct courses attended, birthplace, home language, current address, present occupation/student status, and major field of study.

The second part of the questionnaire asked the students to rate the usefulness of certain academic activities or skills they were exposed to in the FSP curriculum-for example, time management techniques, in-class essay-exam strategies, "psyching out" (or second-guessing) the professor, and preparing reading guides. In addition, students were asked to rate the more global benefits of the FSP, namely, their adjustment to UCLA, their increase in self- confidence, and their ability to use UCLA facilities and resources. The third part of the questionnaire required students to estimate the amount of actual writing they had to do per quarter.

In the final section of the questionnaire, students were asked to write open-ended comments on two questions. The first question asked students to comment on "the single most important thing [they had] learned in the FSP." The second question asked for any other comments the students had about their experiences in dealing with the language and academic demands at UCLA. Procedures. With the cooperation of the UCLA Office of Student Preparatory Programs, records of the 224 ESL students were obtained. These records contained information such as the students' cumulative GPA, major fields of study, ethnic background, and current status (e.g., continuing student, graduated student).

The questionnaires were mailed to the 224 former ESL students. Of these, 25 were returned as undeliverable, netting a target sample of 199. After two mailings, 79 (39.7%) were completed and returned.

Results Student profile. According to student records, the vast majority of the 224 former ESL students were Asian immigrants, mainly from Korean (31%), Chinese (28%), other Asian (26%), Filipino (4.5%), and Japanese (0.9%) backgrounds. Of the remaining students, 5 were from Central or South America (2.2%); 10 were Mexican American (4.5%); 4 were white (1.8%); and 4 students checked "Other" (1.8%). (Rounding error accounts for the total exceeding 100%.) In regard to resident status, 150 (67%) were permanent residents of the United



States, and another 69 (31%) were U.S. citizens. Three reported having business visas, and 1 student had an F 1 student visa. Only 1 student in the sample had refugee-visa status.

The majority of the students were majoring in science at UCLA: 44 (19.8%) were math/computer science majors; 30 (13.4%) were engineering majors; 26 (11.6%) were biology majors; 15 (6.7%) were chemistry majors; and 9 (4%) were physics majors. The rest of the students had declared majors in a variety of fields. Economics (n = 20) and Spanish (n = 3) led the list, with other majors having only 1 or 2 students. The cumulative mean UCLA GPA for the 224 students in this study was 2.66 (SD = 0.57) at the time the information was obtained from the Office of Student Preparatory Programs (May 1986). Only 15 of the 224 students (6.7%) had withdrawn or been dismissed from UCLA at this time. Retrospective program evaluation. The first part of the questionnaire elicited demographic information from the students. Responses were obtained from students who attended the FSP in 1981 (n = 10), 1982 (n = 25), 1983 (n = 30), 1984 (n = 5), and 1985 (n = 9). Of the 79 ESL students, 25 were enrolled in the lower proficiency course (ESL 33B), 48 in the intermediate ESL course (ESL 33C), and 6 in the native-speaker course (English B). The students had participated in a variety of content courses: 35 had studied psychology, 18 political science, 7 anthropology, 11 history, and 1 math; 7 students did not specify which content course they had taken. The majority of the students had declared "hard" science majors, that is, engineering (14), math (12), biology (12), physics (6), and chemistry (4). The rest of the students had declared majors in a variety of fields. Economics led the list (10), with other majors having only 1 or 2 students each.

The bulk of the questionnaires came from students who were born in Korea (24), Vietnam (17), and Taiwan (12). The rest of the respondents came from other Asian countries such as the Philippines or Cambodia, except for 3 who were born in South America. Accordingly, Korean was the stated home language of the largest number of the students, and 21 of the students spoke a variety of Chinese (including 7 of the Vietnamese students who were ethnic Chinese). Forty-seven of the former FSP students were still students at the time they completed the questionnaire; 3 of the students were accountants, 3 were engineers, and the rest worked at a variety of occupations, including computer programmer and receptionist.

The second part of the questionnaire asked the students to rate certain activities or skills they were exposed to in the FSP, as well as

562 TESOL QUARTERLY


more global benefits of the FSP, on a Likert-type 5-point scale, ranging from not useful (1 point) to very useful (5 points). Table 1 presents the rankings based on the students' mean scores.

TABLE 1 Former Students' Rankings of Usefulness of Skills

Learned in the FSP and of Additional Benefits of the FSP

Item rated Mean score

Academic skills Taking lecture notes 3.92 Prewriting strategies 3.71 Proofreading for errors in written work 3.68 Preparing reading guides/notes 3.67 Using rhetorical modes in writing 3.62 "Psyching-out" the professor 3.50 In-class essay-exam strategies 3.48 Revising drafts of take-home paper assignments 3.47 Ability to participate in class discussions 3.39 Time management techniques 3.37 Objective test-taking strategies 3.30 Vocabulary development skills 3.12 Oral presentations 2.64

Additional benefits Adjusting to UCLA 4.12 Increased self-confidence 3.86 Ability to use UCLA facilities 3.85 Ability to use UCLA resources (e.g., counselors) 3.78

Note: Students responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not useful; 5 = very useful). The survey was completed by 79 students.

These results indicate that the former ESL students in the FSP generally valued the activities aimed at easing the adjustment from high school to college. Three of the four items that received the highest ratings were the additional benefits of the FSP--"adjusting to UCLA," "increased self-confidence," and "ability to use UCLA facilities." "Taking lecture notes" was the highest rated academic skill. Other academic skills such as "prewriting strategies," "proofreading for errors in written work," and "preparing reading guides/notes" were also highly rated.

The third part of the questionnaire requested information on the amount of actual writing the students had to do per quarter. The mean number of in-class essays they wrote per quarter was 2.4; the mean number of take-home papers per quarter was 2.2.

On the final section of the questionnaire, which requested open- ended comments about the students' experience in the FSP, the



responses were overwhelmingly positive. Three themes stood out among the positive comments: easing the adjustment, increased self-confidence, and learning how to get help. The following comments from the questionnaires illustrate the themes in the students' own words (mechanical errors corrected):

1. Ease of adjustment "The most important contribution from the FSP was that the program helped me to adjust to UCLA life with much ease." "FSP gave me an edge in fall quarter. I knew roughly what to expect from UCLA."

2. Self-confidence "I'll say it's 'Increased self-confidence' because I think I didn't realize that I can actually do well in UCLA, until I ... started to believe that I can do well." "I grew up more mature after spending 7 weeks in FSP and was very confident to work hard to overcome all the barriers."

3. Learning to get help "The most important thing that I've learned during my participation in FSP was that professors and the staff are really eager to help the students to assist them in every possible way, if the students ask for help." "Knowing where to get help, tutoring, and to set aside time to talk to professors. Time management was also a great benefit."

Despite the overall positive tone of the open-ended comments, students had some constructive comments to offer to the program's administrators. As exemplified by the quotes below, one main concern was the excess support provided by the FSP, which students felt gave them a somewhat false sense of their ability to compete at the university. An additional concern expressed by those students majoring in the sciences was the program's focus on the social sciences and humanities.

1. Excess support "It was a great confidence builder, which could be both to its advantage and disadvantage. The disadvantage of it could be building too much confidence." "During the FSP, I was working closely with friends, tutors, and counselors, but after the real freshman year began, I was mostly on my own .... I hope that the follow-up can somehow help the students who were discouraged in the competition."

2. Program focus "Because I am a science major, I feel that the skills I learned hardly helped me in writing a scientific lab report."

564 TESOL QUARTERLY


"I also believe the FSP can be improved by giving more speech courses because for my major [biology] I had to speak a lot."

Discussion of Study 1 Results The student profile that emerged from Study 1 provided useful

information for future FSP curricular planning. The predominance of Asian immigrant students enrolled in the program throughout the years came as no surprise; however, the high percentage of science majors, coupled with their dissatisfaction with the program focus, has important implications for the selection of content courses to be offered in the FSP. Although no causal connections can be drawn between FSP participation and persistence at the university, it is interesting that the number of students who had withdrawn or who had left for academic reasons was small and that FSP students overall maintained a respectable GPA.

The results of the retrospective evaluation by the former ESL students provided strong validation of the overall usefulness of the FSP in easing the transition period from high school to the university. They also confirmed the program objectives of the FSP, which emphasize the essential academic skills that students will need throughout their university career.

Another interesting finding concerned the amount of writing the students were required to do each quarter in their regular classes. This finding goes to the heart of a lingering question-namely, how much writing do ESL students (who typically major in science or who may avoid courses that require a lot of writing) actually do, once they have completed the required ESL/English courses? The findings indicate that the former FSP students did, in fact, have to write in-class and out-of-class papers in their content classes, thereby validating the specific focus of the FSP and EAP courses in general.

STUDY 2: ESL STUDENT FOLLOW-UP The second study, which involved an intensive follow-up of ESL

students who had participated in the 1986 summer program, consisted of a series of interviews and the administration of a simulated final exam. The research questions were as follows: 1. How did the former ESL students in the FSP adjust to UCLA

during the regular year? 2. How did the former ESL participants in the FSP compare-in

terms of English proficiency and academic skills-with ESL students who did not participate in the program?



Methodology Subjects. Subjects for the first part of the study were 12 students from the 1986 program, who were selected in equal numbers from both levels of ESL (33B and 33C) based on their willingness to participate. The native languages of the 12 students were Spanish (3), Korean (3), Cambodian (2), Chinese (2), Vietnamese (1), and Tagalog (1).

A comparison group was composed of 15 ESL students who were enrolled in an ESL 33C class in the fall of 1986. This class was selected, since the students enrolled were most comparable in terms of student status and proficiency level to the FSP students. In this group, the languages spoken were Spanish (2), Korean (4), Chinese (6), Armenian (2), and Vietnamese (1).

Although the term comparison group is used to refer to the non- FSP students, it should be noted that a number of disparities existed between the two groups. First, since the FSP is funded through the university's Affirmative Active Program (AAP), most of the FSP students qualify as AAP students. Second, by definition, all FSP students are entering freshmen. This was not the case with the non- FSP group, although the majority were freshmen, all were undergraduates, and all had been placed into ESL 33C via the fall ESLPE. Finally, because of the heterogeneity of ESL students enrolled in the 1986 FSP, the proficiency range of these students was quite wide compared with that of the non-FSP students. Instruments. Two instruments were designed for Study 2. The first was a questionnaire for a structured interview administered to the former FSP participants. The structured questions pertained to the academic problems these students were experiencing during fall quarter and their assessment of how the FSP had helped prepare them to cope with the realities of study at the university. In addition, other more extemporaneous questions were posed regarding issues that arose during the interviews.

As additional support for the self-report data obtained, a second instrument, a simulated final exam from a content area, was developed to assess more quantitatively the extent to which these students had been prepared for the academic demands of the university. The objective was to present students with an academic task that they were likely to encounter across the curriculum at the university, not one that resembled a typical second language proficiency exam. A second objective was to construct a type of task that reflected the orientation of the adjunct model-that is, an exam that could assess the students' ability to integrate language and content.

566 TESOL QUARTERLY


The simulated academic task designed for this purpose consisted of the following components: (a) a selection from an audiotaped university lecture (approximately 8 minutes in length), (b) an excerpt from a university textbook, (c) objective questions and short-answer definitions that drew on the lecture and reading selections, and (d) a short essay-exam question requiring students to synthesize information from both the lecture and reading passages.

The topic "political elites" was selected, since it was felt that the students would have minimal familiarity with the content. The lecture was taken from Module 3, Political Science and Law, of Listening and Learning Lectures (Young & Fitzgerald, 1982), an academic ESL listening series; the reading passage was drawn from American Politics (Dolbeare & Edelman, 1981, pp. 253-263), a college-level text of the type used in introductory political science courses. Both the lecture and the reading were slightly edited to increase coherence; however, every attempt was made to preserve the authenticity of the passages. Procedures. Three structured 1-hour interviews were conducted with each of the 12 former FSP students during Weeks 3, 6, and 10 of the fall quarter. The same questions were posed to each student during each of the three interview sessions. The interviewer took notes and later summarized them for coding.

The simulated final examination was administered to each group during the same week of fall quarter 1986. The regular classroom instructor administered the examination to the comparison group during regular class time, and the researchers conducted the FSP administration. Both groups had 2 hours to complete the entire academic task (without time limits for individual segments) following the same set of instructions. First, the students read general instructions outlining the task, which informed them that they had to use the lecture and reading materials to complete the examination. They then listened to the lecture and took notes, read the passage, and answered a series of true-false and multiple-choice questions. They next wrote sentence definitions and composed a comparison/contrast essay requiring them to synthesize the lecture and reading materials.

The objective section was marked by the researchers. The essays were blind-rated by three experienced composition instructors using a composition rating scale (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey, 1981) with which all three raters were familiar. A norming session was conducted using four student essays selected by the researchers as exemplifying a range of proficiency levels and containing a variety of structural and discourse problems. The



interrater reliability of the three composition raters, determined by computing Spearman correlation coefficients, was .64, .65, and .74.

Results Interviews with the FSP students. The most relevant issues raised during the structured interviews fell into the following four categories: (a) students' assessment of their study skills in the fall quarter, (b) their ability to participate in class discussions, (c) their ability to cope with the writing tasks faced in the fall quarter, and (d) the degree to which they felt the FSP had prepared them for the regular school year.

Regarding the study skills issue, an overwhelming majority of the students commented that the FSP had helped them to achieve success in time management, lecture note taking, and reading. Several commented that the FSP had helped make them wise to the "system." Especially in the first interview, students appeared quite confident of their note-taking and reading skills. However, in the second interview, which occurred after midterm exams, there was a noticeable decline in confidence regarding these skills, as well as an awareness among the students that their time management skills were still weak. Specifically, students noted difficulties in picking out major points in lectures and expressed surprise that so much of the midterm exam material was drawn from lectures. Many admitted that after midterm exams, they had resorted to buying the lecture notes available through the university's note-taking service.

The question concerning students' ability to participate in class discussions met with mixed reactions from students. On the one hand, students noted that the small class size and amount of individual attention paid to them in the FSP was a great confidence builder and that this had made them less nervous about participating in class discussions. However, many of the students who were enrolled in mathematics or science classes commented that participation was not encouraged. Others remarked that the presence of graduate students in their ESL classes during the regular school year diminished some of their confidence.

Since the FSP was designed to emphasize writing in both the language and content courses, it was almost inevitable that all students would note a decreased emphasis on writing during the fall term. This was especially true of the mathematics and science students. Nonetheless, students reported a variety of writing assignments in their content courses, and almost all noted that they felt better able to cope with these as a result of the FSP. In terms of the English classes in which these students were enrolled

568 TESOL QUARTERLY


subsequent to the FSP class, they almost universally felt that not enough "intensive" writing was being required. Overall, despite the boost that students felt they had received in the FSP, they appeared very aware that they had a number of residual writing problems, particularly in the areas of grammar and organization.

Finally, concerning the degree to which the FSP had prepared them for the regular session, students felt that the program had "pretty much covered everything" they needed in order to face the academic demands of the university. However, they complained that after the network of support services in the FSP, they had been surprised by the more bureaucratic demands of the university, such as registration and bookstore lines, parking difficulties, and financial-aid "hassles." Simulated final examination. The test scores of the FSP group and the non-FSP group on the UCLA ESLPE were analyzed using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. The analysis revealed significant differences between the two groups on English language proficiency (z = 2.11, p < .05) (see Table 2). In other words, the ESL students in the FSP had significantly lower placement scores than the non-FSP ESL students. However, there were no significant differences in performance between the two groups on either the objective or essay portions of the simulated examination. Thus, although the FSP students in this study had lower English placement scores, they performed as well as the non-FSP students on an exam that tested listening and reading comprehension and required the higher order thinking skills of synthesis and evaluation in the composition of the essay.

TABLE 2 FSP versus Non-FSP Students on Placement Exam and Simulated Final Exam: Means and Standard Deviations

Examination FSP Non-FSP z p

ESLPE M 90.8 99.4 2.11 < .05 SD 11.9 13.5

Objective final M 25.4 26.1 0.63 n.s. SD 5.4 7.8

Essay final M 66.5 67.2 0.42 n.s. SD 13.3 16.3

Note: Significance testing was by the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. Subjects were 12 FSP students and 15 non-FSP students. ESLPE = the English as a Second Language Placement Exam given at UCLA.



Discussion of Study 2 Results The data from the structured interviews provided additional

evidence of the beneficial effects of the FSP in helping to prepare students to cope with college-level work. Of particular interest were the students' comments concerning the rigorous nature of the FSP English course, which the students realized in retrospect. Apparently, the students felt that the FSP had prepared them not only academically for the regular school year, but also in other ways, such as helping them to become wise to the system. This was a rewarding finding, since it validates the entire fabric of the FSP, with its strong network of counseling and tutorial services in addition to the academic component. The students' reports of little opportunity to participate in class discussions reinforced the FSP's emphasis on reading and writing skills, since such discussions are rare in many university courses.

The results of the simulated final exam provided evidence that the adjunct model is an appropriate one for students who come to the university with weak language and academic skills. It is gratifying to note that despite the FSP students' significantly lower ESL placement scores, they were able to compete with their ESL counterparts on a task requiring them to use the kinds of academic skills crucial for success at the university. This is especially true of the FSP students' essay results, which were the most powerful indicator of their academic achievement.

A final note regarding the essay-rating procedures is perhaps in order. The interrater reliability of the essay portion of the final exam was somewhat disappointing. In retrospect, we believe that our choice of the Jacobs et al. (1981) scale was perhaps not the most appropriate because the raters experienced difficulties coming to terms with such issues as how to deal quantitatively with the amount of the original source text used (i.e., not correctly paraphrased) and how to take into account the degree to which the information from the two sources had been synthesized. As suggested by Cruikshank and Sullivan-Tuncan (1987), the Jacobs et al. scale is designed to assess noncontent-based essays, that is, essays that do not require students to synthesize source materials such as reading passages or text materials. Clearly, there is a need for a composition rating scale that takes into account how effectively students are able to integrate source texts into their own writing.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION An underlying assumption of the pedagogical framework of the

adjunct model is that student motivation in the language class will

570 TESOL QUARTERLY


increase in direct proportion to the relevance of its activities, and in turn student success in the content course will reflect the carefully coordinated efforts of this team approach. The program evaluation findings and student self-reports appear to validate this assumption: The former students reported that they felt they were better readers and writers as a result of the FSP. Moreover, results from the comparison study indicate that the FSP students were able to perform as well as their non-FSP peers, despite lower English language placement scores. In sum, the data collected in these two studies provide a first attempt to document the effectiveness of the FSP in assisting underprepared ESL students to cope with the demands of university study.

Clearly, the adjunct model offers multiple pedagogical strengths; however, a number of factors may limit its applicability. First, since the model depends on the availability of content course offerings, a full-blown adjunct model is probably not feasible at an intensive language institute. Second, as we have described it, adjunct instruction assumes that students can cope (with assistance from the language and content staff) with the authentic readings and lectures in the content course. Thus, the model is not applicable to beginning proficiency levels. Third, the model requires an administration willing to fund the large network of instructors and staff necessitated by the program and a strong commitment of time and energy on the part of the language and content teachers to integrate the content materials with the language-teaching aims. Finally, more than anything else, the adjunct model rests on the strength of its central administration and the effectiveness of the various coordination meetings held before and during the term. In situations where these conditions cannot be met, the implementation of the model will be severely hampered.

Despite these limitations, we believe the adjunct model can be adapted to fit other institutional settings and populations. As evidence of this, adjunct programs such as the FSP at UCLA or modified adjuncts-that is, language workshops attached to a content course-currently exist both here and abroad: with undergraduate international students studying human geography at Macalester College in St. Paul, MN (Peterson, 1985), and graduate students in pharmacy (Seal, 1985) and business law (Snow & Brinton, 1984) at the University of Southern California; with foreign students studying the philosophy of science (Jonas & Li, 1983) and American history and economics (Spencer, 1986) in the People's Republic of China; and with both francophone and anglophone students learning English and French through subject-matter courses at the University of Ottawa (Wesche, 1985).



Overall, we believe that these studies have far-reaching implications for educational planning and policy. First, the current movement in second language education at all levels of instruction (elementary through higher education) is toward content-based approaches. This descriptive study documents the effectiveness of one type of content-based program, the adjunct model. A second major policy implication concerns the multicultural reality of education today in the United States, particularly in large urban areas with burgeoning populations of language minority students. As documented by this study, the adjunct model holds great promise as a viable approach for preparing these types of students to succeed in a university setting.

Clearly, more comprehensive, controlled research on the adjunct model is called for. One possible direction would be a longitudinal study of the participating students over the 4-year period of their undergraduate education; such a study would yield important information about students' academic success and persistence at the university. More convincing evidence of the effectiveness of the model could also be established by designing more rigorous research studies. For example, a pre/post design might be employed, in which an instrument such as the simulated final examination developed for this study is administered at the beginning and end of the term to measure student progress. Moreover, with the increasing implementation of content-based programs, a concomitant need arises to develop assessment instruments that better reflect the curricular objectives of these kinds of programs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was provided by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, OERI Contract No. 400-85-1010, to the Center for Language Education and Research. The authors wish to thank the following people for their assistance and cooperation throughout the study: Desdemona Cardoza, Gary Columbo, Steve Duarte, Hal Fairchild, Roann Altman, Mark Rankin, Jan Eyring, David Starkey, and Fred Davidson. We would also like to thank our composition raters, Cherry Campbell, Debra Jonas, and Victoria Markee.

572 TESOL QUARTERLY


THE AUTHORS

Marguerite Ann Snow, Assistant Professor in the School of Education at California State University, Los Angeles, is interested in content-based second language education, immersion education, and ESL teaching methodology. Donna M. Brinton is ESL Media Coordinator and Lecturer in the TESL/Applied Linguistics Programs at UCLA. She has also served as a member of the Freshman Summer Program teaching staff.

REFERENCES

Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written Communication, 1, 247-280.

Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (in press). Content-based second language instruction. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Cruikshank, D., & Sullivan-Tuncan, S. (1987, April). The assessment of critical thinking skills in ESL composition. Paper presented at the 21st Annual TESOL Convention, Miami Beach, FL.

Dolbeare, K. M., & Edelman, M. (1981). American politics: Policies, power, and change. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Graham, J. (1987). English language proficiency and the prediction of academic success. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 505-521.

Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-462.

Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Johns, A. M. (1981). Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 51-57.

Jonas, D., & Li, X. L. (1983, March). The revised adjunct concept in China. Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto.

Kissler, G. R. (1983, March). The educational crisis in California: Can the catastrophe be avoided? Paper presented at the California Coalition for Fair School Finance.

Kroll, B. (1979). A survey of the writing needs of foreign and American college freshmen. ELT Journal, 33, 219-226.

Mohan, B. (1979). Relating language teaching and content teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 171-182.

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ostler, S. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL

Quarterly, 14, 489-502. Peterson, P. W. (1985). The bridge course: Listening comprehension in

authentic settings. TESOL Newsletter, 19 (6), 21. Seal, B. D. (1985, April). Some observations on adjunct courses. Paper

presented at CATESOL, San Diego. Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing.

TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617-648.



Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. (1984). Linking ESL courses with university content courses: The adjunct model. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244 515)

Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. (1988). The adjunct model of language instruction: Integrating language and content at the university (Tech. Rep. No. 8). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Language Education and Research.

Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. (in press). The adjunct model of language instruction: An ideal EAP framework. In S. Benesch (Ed.), Beyond remediation. Washington, DC: TESOL.

Spencer, L. (1986, March). An adjunct model ESP program: Balancing content and skills. Paper presented at the 20th Annual TESOL Convention, Anaheim, CA.

Wesche, M. B. (1985). Immersion and the universities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 931-940.

Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willetts, K. (1986). Integrating language and content instruction (Educational Rep. No. 5). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Language Education and Research.

Young, L., & Fitzgerald, B. (1982). Listening and learning lectures: Module 3. Political science and law. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

574 TESOL QUARTERLY


Article Contentsp. 553p. 554p. 555p. 556p. 557p. 558p. 559p. 560p. 561p. 562p. 563p. 564p. 565p. 566p. 567p. 568p. 569p. 570p. 571p. 572p. 573p. 574

Issue Table of ContentsTESOL Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 545-752Volume Information [pp. 721-734]Front Matter [pp. 545-712]In This Issue [pp. 549-551]Content-Based Language Instruction: Investigating the Effectiveness of the Adjunct Model [pp. 553-574]Ethnography in ESL: Defining the Essentials [pp. 575-592]Functional Load and the Teaching of Pronunciation [pp. 593-606]A Behavioral Anchoring Analysis of Three ESL Reading Comprehension Tests [pp. 607-622]Some Criteria for the Development of Communicative Grammar Tasks [pp. 623-646]ReviewReview: untitled [pp. 647-657]

Book NoticesReview: untitled [pp. 659-660]Review: untitled [pp. 660-661]Review: untitled [pp. 661-662]Review: untitled [pp. 662-663]Review: untitled [pp. 663-664]Review: untitled [pp. 665]Review: untitled [pp. 666-667]Review: untitled [pp. 667-668]Review: untitled [pp. 668-669]Review: untitled [pp. 669-670]Review: untitled [pp. 671-672]Review: untitled [pp. 672-673]

Brief Reports and SummariesTopic and Feedback in Native-Speaker/Nonnative-Speaker Conversation [pp. 675-681]Patterns of Question Selection and Writing Performance of ESL Students [pp. 681-684]

The ForumProblems, Prescriptions, and Paradoxes in Second Language Teaching [pp. 685-700]Two Commentaries on Ruth Spack's "Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far Should We Go?". A Reader Reacts [pp. 700-702]Two Commentaries on Ruth Spack's "Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far Should We Go?". The Author Responds to Braine [pp. 703-705]Two Commentaries on Ruth Spack's "Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far Should We Go?". Another Reader Reacts [pp. 705-707]Two Commentaries on Ruth Spack's "Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far Should We Go?". The Author Responds to Johns [pp. 707-708]

Publications Received [pp. 713-714]Back Matter [pp. 715-752]

content-based language instruction - investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model

Documents

language minority students

students evaluation

incoming students

jstor terms

fsp followup students

university success

selected esl students

university setting